INSTITUTIONS OF ORATORY

I am not unaware that since words are signs of things, one could have first discussed the etymology of Rhetoric, the ambiguity of the term, and other such matters. However, I do not wish to keep the reader in the entrance hall for too long while they hurry toward the inner sanctum of the discipline. Vossius uses the metaphor of a "vestibule" and "penetralia" (the innermost part of a temple) to distinguish between basic definitions and the deep study of rhetorical theory. Therefore, I judge it better to touch upon the main highlights of the subject. What I pass over now, or treat briefly, I follow more fully in the separate treatise I wrote, On the Nature and Constitution of Rhetoric.

* Aristotle, Book 1 of Ethics, chapter 2.

No sane person doubts that there is some architectonic goal for the Orator. original: architectonicum. This term describes a primary or "master" goal that organizes and directs all the subordinate tasks within an art or science. Just as there is necessarily a goal in any of the arts, because in the active and productive arts the very principle of action is removed if the goal is taken away; so it is rightly judged that among the things to be known before studying a discipline is its ultimate goal. This is because our desire cannot be carried on into infinity. This is a standard logical argument. If there were no final goal, humans would keep seeking one thing after another forever without purpose. But what that target is, at which the Orator must perpetually aim, is debated in various ways by various people. To Aristotle, a man certainly established beyond all doubt of his genius, the goal is persuasion. I have no doubt that all who examine this matter according to the balance of the logical scale will subscribe to this opinion. Indeed, an ultimate goal is that for the sake of which all things are done, while it is itself done for the sake of nothing else. The Orator does all things in order to persuade. Therefore, persuasion is the architectonic goal of the Orator.

Those who side with Quintilian argue that persuasion is not the target of the Orator, because it is not within the power of the craftsman. They point out that an Orator is not always an effective persuader. original: exorator. This refers to someone who successfully achieves the act of winning over the audience. Quintilian argued that an orator's job is to speak well, regardless of whether he actually wins the case. Even though these people have drunk so deeply of that opinion that I do not think even Suada was the Roman goddess of persuasion, often used to personify the orator's power. Persuasion herself could convince them otherwise, they will surely yield somewhat if they consider the nature of faculties. original: Facultatum. In classical logic, a "faculty" is a power that can produce two opposite results, such as medicine being used to study both health and disease. The nature of such powers is that they look equally toward both contraries, and therefore they do not necessarily achieve their goal every time. We should not agree with those who assert that there is a determined and certain goal in all disciplines, even regarding the outcome. Certainly, "speaking well" is by no means the ultimate goal, because something that is done for the sake of another cannot be the ultimate goal. To this point, as Julius Scaliger (a man second only to Aristotle) most clearly writes:

* Book 1 on the Art of Poetry, chapter 1.

However, one should not think that, in Aristotle's opinion, the goal of the Orator is simply to persuade. Rather, it is to persuade regarding what is just and good. For even if the Orator is inclined toward persuading in the same way whether the matter is just or unjust (if we look at the faculty itself), the logic of the will is different. He ought to propose to himself only what is just and useful.

It must also be held, to remove all ambiguity,